wrote:
:|Aloha,
Now I wonder why on earth MK posted this in alt.religion.deism, alt.history
:|>
:|MK. Jalison/buckeye would probably agree that Justice Thomas --was--
:|right about the establishment clause.
Nope. Thomas is full of it and letting his dominion/reconstructionist views
show.
:|Some States had State religions.
Some states had slavery, I wonder if MK and Thomas would like to return to
those days again?
:|Massachusetts and Pennsylvania were religious colonies prior to the
:|American revolution.
Penna never had a state or colonial religion. Get your facts right.
In fact four colonies/states never had established religions
According to James Madison:
"In the Colonial State of the Country, there were four examples, R. I, N.
J.; Penna, and Delaware, & the greater part of N. Y where there were no
religious Establishments; the support of Religion being left to the
voluntary associations contributions of individuals; and certainly the
religious condition of those Colonies will well bear a comparison with that
where establishments existed."
Letter to the Rev Jasper Adams 1833
:|Just which State powers remain, given subsequent
:|amendments, is in dispute.
What is in dispute? Where is your evidence that there is a dispute?
Ever hear of the 14th Amendment?
:|People who expect to win in State-level
:|court battles insist that their issue is a proper exercise of
:|State-level power. People who expect to win in State-level legislative
:|contests insist that their issue is properly decided at the local level
:|outside of courts. If you expect to lose in legislation, you will be
:|happy to see your State court find US-constitutional objections to
:|legislation.
Find U S Constitutional objections?
LOL
Your biases and propaganda is showing.
Here dippy try to digest this
"Those who approve of government-sponsored religious practices
sometimes argue that people are "free to ignore them." On the contrary, no
one should be required to ignore an action by government that it is not
empowered to take. That response too closely resembles the attitude of the
early Puritans. To those who objected that some who had come for liberty
refused it to others, the Puritan authorities replied that dissenters had
full liberty to go elsewhere! Fortunately, they generally did not go
elsewhere, but instead stayed to challenge, to check and counterbalance the
tyranny of the majority, and in doing so to extend the reach and
understanding of religious liberty. To attempt to perpetuate Christendom is
to ignore their struggles, to deprive individuals of freedom and dignity,
and to turn back in the direction of religious tyranny. It represents a
sorry loss of historical wisdom and imagination."
SOURCE: Farewell to Christendom, The Future of Church State in America,
Thomas J, Curry, Oxford University Press (2001) p 115
Thomas J. Curry is an Auxiliary Bishop of the Archdiocese of Los Angeles
and author of The First Freedoms: Church and State in America to the
Passage of the First Amendment. (OUP 1987)
:|If you expect to win in Federal court but to lose in the
:|Congress and the Administration, you will find some reason to endorse
:|activism by Federal courts but not by the executive of Legislative
:|branches (e.g., Andrew Sullivan's position on State sodomy laws and
:|homosexual marriage).
Boo hoo bawl sniff sniff
:|Abortion, homosexuality, drugs, and school
:|vouchers are all issues where proponents and opponents often seem more
:|opportunistic than principled, to me.
You shouldn know all about that since it describes you to a "T"
:|Alan Dershowitz recently
:|suggested on C-Span that the Roe v. Wade decision did more harm than
:|good to the cause of women's choice, as it allowed advocates to become
:|lazy, and not to make their case to the public. Once, possession of
:|marijuana by a civilian on a military base was un-prosecutable. The Air
:|Force shipped the culprit from Johnston atoll to Honolulu, but the
:|Honolulu DA observed that Honolulu did not have jurisdiction, either.
:|>
:|MK. When Democrat-appointed judges ruled the USSC, the NEA was happy to
:|insist on US Constitutiojnal supremacy, and to have school voucher
:|issues decided in Federal courts.
For a embittered and angry at the public education former school teacher
you sure must have slept through most of any history courses your ever took
because you are totally historically challenged.
Chief Justice John Marshall insisted on the U S Constitutional supremacy.
Aid to religion has been an issue in both state and federal courts for a
very long time beginning in the late 1700s with regards to state courts,
throughout the 1800s and into the 1900s James Madison while President
vetoed there acts of Congress, of which at least one was about aid poor
Children for education etc because they violated the Establishment Clause
Aid to religion came to federal courts in the 1940s and have been there
since
There isn't a thing in your post that is supported by historical or legal
facts
This is pure propaganda.
MK the biased lying propagandist at work again.
:|Now that Republican appointees rule,
:|the NEA's shills insist that education is a State responsibility, and
:|that State-level constitutional bans on funding of religious schools
:|pass US-constitutional muster.
Apparently not only did you sleep through your history courses you slept
through all your civil and government courses as well.
American courts are not embraced within a single judicial or governmental
structure. Properly speaking, there, is no such thing as the American
judicial system. Instead, there are multiple systems, each independent of
the others. There are also multiple sources of American law. The courts of
one system are often called upon to apply and interpret the law generated
in another. Moreover, there is often duplicative, concurrent jurisdiction
over the same case in two or more judicial systems. These circumstances and
others combine to give the United States its extraordinarily complicated
legal order.
The great divide in the American legal landscape is the state-federal line.
It derives from the United States Constitution, pursuant to which the
federal government was created in 1789 to "form a more perfect Union" of
the existing states. The federal government and the state governments
coexist, with a broad range of powers delegated to the former and all
others reserved to the latter. Each of these governments has its own court
system, autonomous and self-contained.
Today there are fifty states and thus fifty state judicial systems.
Separate court systems, analogous to those in the states, are maintained in
the District of Columbia and the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico.
The other distinctive feature of American courts is the doctrine of
judicial review. Under this doctrine, a court has power to hold a
legislative act (a statute) to be contrary to either the Federal
Constitution or a state constitution and hence unenforceable. Similarly,
courts also exercise power to hold unconstitutional the acts of executive
officials. Constitutional adjudications of these sorts can occur in any
civil or criminal case. There are no special constitutional courts in the
United States.
Any court, state or Federal can pass on the constitutionality of a
statute or or executive action, state or federal, whenever the question is
necessary to the resolution of a case before it. State courts must apply
both the state constitution and the Federal Constitution; if there is any
conflict between the two, the Federal Constitution will prevails Federal
courts apply the Federal Constitution; they also have authority to apply
state constitutional provisions when the when the meaning of such
provisions is drawn in question, : but they will normally defer to state
courts on a question of that sort. The power of judicial review, unknown in
England and not employed by the ordinary courts in civil-law countries,
clothes American courts with the authority to set aside actions of the
elected representatives of the people on the ground that they are contrary
to the higher law of the constitution.
SOURCE: American Courts, Daniel John Meador Professor of Law UVA, West
Publishing Co (1991) pp. 1, 3.
*******************************************************************************
Nothing new about the above, it has been that way pretty much from the
beginning.
:| Would those who endorse school vouchers
Who besides the theocrats endorse school vouchers? You talk about what the
people want, the people have shown for 30 straight years in vote after vote
they don't want vouchers in states across the country.
Who are these people who endorse school vouncers besides the ultra
conservatives, and theocrats.
The rest of your biased propaganda is deleted. I suggest you take some
history courses as well as civic, and government courses.
But you won't since your purpose is to spit forth lies and propaganda
misc.education,alt.atheism,alt.politics.liberalism,alt.politics.republicans,alt.politics.usa.republica
n,alt.society.liberalism
Subject: ULTIMATE Series, Vouchers, updated
Date: Wed, 23 Apr 2003 12:10:34 GMT
PART I
GOVERNMENT-FUNDED VOUCHERS FOR
PRIVATE SCHOOLS
QUOTATIONS
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=jl0davgv0vsn9ofchpvmdjm9slfi5uv9nr%404ax.com&oe
=UTF-8&output=gplain
***************************************
PART II
VOUCHERS REPRESENT A SERIOUS CHALLENGE TO
THE SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=ql0dav8li7dp3v79uom1qjbtjv3gqf7ujf%404ax.com&oe=
UTF-8&output=gplain
***************************************
PART III
RECENT DEVELOPMENTS, 2000 MID 0NWARD
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=1m0dav03rv17ci6l1gnj1q7t52832j0cg7%404ax.com&oe
=UTF-8&output=gplain
***************************************
PART IV
NOW FOR SOME HISTORY:
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=7m0davcq2eddp9gn6unkvb577plolj9hnn%404ax.com&o
e=UTF-8&output=gplain
***************************************
PART V
You want to study the USSC and its rulings on aid to religion :
Have at it:
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=cm0dav0m5hird75bi8oa98rfqte05evamt%404ax.com&oe
=UTF-8&output=gplain
***************************************
PART VI
THE ESTABLISHMENT CLAUSE AS DEFINED IN 1947:
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=im0davom7u6os59tk66pogn9p43ofad4h8%404ax.com&
oe=UTF-8&output=gplain
***************************************
PART VII
Mitchell v. Helms
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=nm0davkhrq2ng1n5jgh0jrdn2gntdlooth%404ax.com&oe
=UTF-8&output=gplain
***************************************
PART VIII
HISTORICALLY SPEAKING:
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=tm0davo7fg7adlmee54diejlfjakn19j0t%404ax.com&oe=
UTF-8&output=gplain
***************************************
PART IX
The voucher issue has a very simple solution.
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=in0dav850mdh7oob0r0n3evppqeja6d5m1%404ax.com&
oe=UTF-8&output=gplain
UPDATES TO THE UPDATE SERIES
Colorado school voucher program signed into law
State program is first since Supreme Court ruling
Thursday, April 17, 2003 Posted: 9:03 AM EDT (1303 GMT)
http://www.cnn.com/2003/EDUCATION/04/17/colorado.voucher.reut/
***************************************
Press Release
May 20, 2003
Americans United, Allied Groups File Challenge To Colorado Voucher Law
Lawsuit In State Court Says Voucher Program Subverts State Ban Against
Public Funding Of Religion
http://www.au.org/press/pr030520.htm
***************************************
Voucher Violation [July/August-Church State]
Americans United, Allies File Lawsuit Against Colorado School Voucher
Scheme
http://www.au.org/churchstate/03-07-feature3.htm
***************************************
Vouchers Reloaded [July/August-Church State]
Washington State Scholarship Case At Supreme Court Could Rewrite
Church-State Law In America
http://www.au.org/churchstate/03-07-feature1.htm
.
|
